There's that one, very public, case. That happened after the entire ordeal blew up, and happened after shkreli had said that people got it for free if they needed it It's not nothing, but it's not exactly impressive either
So maybe instead of saying, "Find one person who got it for free," you should have said, "Find one person who got it for free that I like even though the US has some serious medical privacy laws and therefore it's nearly impossible to find unless that sick someone (with HIV) voluntarily comes forward publicly, risking their career and future job prospects, to be on the side of a person that has been heavily vilified…
Or find me a page on company's website that lists steps needed to qualify that are not too onerous and hopefully clear. Phone number would be appreciated too.
You know, something that looks more like a deliberate program and not a one-off.
I quite like Martin. I talked to him a few time on YouTube, whilst he was live streaming. He's whip-smart & knowledgeable. He does, however, have a couple of major flaws. 1) He trolls. Hard. 2) It seems he lies. Which I picked up from a previous news article. (He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm. Something like that). I can forgive the trolling. It's over the…
> He claimed to have ~$50mm under management @ his previous hedge fund. It was more like $1.6mm
The number of people who think the leverage their account gives them - and he could have easily had 20x-50x leverage - means that is money under management is surprising.
"because it creates a much easier environment for an arbitrary court system to throw people in jail who are innocent and removes other protections like jury nullification. You could look at Japan, which tried to solve its problem of innocent people going to jail by introducing a lay-judge system (kind of like jurors who can ask questions during the trial), for a real-life example of some of the problems you might hav…
Juries convict, but judges sentence. The incarceration rate is high because of strict sentencing guidelines written in the law and voters electing tough-on-crime judges. Eliminating jury trials would change none of that.
But making judges appointed rather than elected positions might.
Why would this guy should go to prison when no one(except one guy in us) went to prison after the massive financial crisis in 2008?I know its naive/rhetorical question but thinking about it, its crazy to me.He did no financial harm too.
There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…
Did he make the investors their money back (plus a return) by vastly increasing the price of a drug(s)?
That seems to me morally evil and also very suspect. Although I'm sure the rigidity of the legal system would not allow this kind of inference to be made or pursued legally.
It would just seem to me as a legal/pharma layman that basically a bunch of sick people got screwed so that some investors (gamblers imo) could get their money back.
You might find FedEx's origin story interesting. > “I asked Fred where the funds had come from, and he responded, ‘The meeting with the General Dynamics board was a bust and I knew we needed money for Monday, so I took a plane to Las Vegas and won $27,000.’ I said, ‘You mean you took our last $5,000— how could you do that?’ He shrugged his shoulders and said, ‘What difference does it make? Without the funds for the f…
Technically, Fred committed a fraud (actually I forget the technical term for the crime where you misuse funds). Its just that he wasn't prosecuted for it.
There seems to be a misconception regarding what Shkreli was found guilty of. The legal case here has very little to do with the pharmaceutical pricing controversy - it is a separate case based on a separate hedge fund that he managed. The gist of it is that he took people's money to start a hedge fund, lied to investors that the fund was doing fine when the hedge fund went belly up, but ended up returning everyone's…
True. It'd be like robbing a bank, using the money from that robbery to, say, start up a successful business, and then discreetly give the money and interest back. Money taken on false pretenses, regardless of what you end up doing with it or if you end up getting lucky and being able to pay it back, is still a crime.
I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…
Let me start by saying that what you are saying probably should be the way it plays out in this case. Everyone seems to have made money. I was just stating how it actually plays out in the vast majority of federal cases, and will likely play out here. In this case, because of the amount involved, the guidelines will call for a substantial prison sentence (well over 5 years). There is actually a loss table (again, we'…
I should point out too that his being able to pay them back with profit really had nothing to do with his original taking of money. It is tantamount to pure luck that he was able to, entirely separately from the fraud, recoup their losses. Had it not been for that separate channel of money available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to undo the damage done by his harm. And THAT is why this is a punishable crime. If you stab someone and then treat the wound and it heals entirely - even if you find, say, a tumor while you're treating the wound and end up unintentionally saving the person's life, you have still committed the crime of assault. It was only by coincidence that you helped the person out after the crime was committed.
I disagree. I think it will be a major factor at sentencing. First the fact that he did give them their money (with a significant return on it) back to the people well before the government got involved (meaning it wasn't a PR show) to me means there was never any intent for them to actually lose money. I think the judge will see it the same way. Because if that weren't true, he would never have repatriated the money…
Most ponzi schemes and unauthorised trading start with someone trying to make up for a loss they made and hoping they will fix things and everyone will be made up. That doesn't make it less serious. It may look surprising given the hatred of bankers here, but it's a profession based on honesty. A guy got banned from the city in London for regularly frauding on his train tickets.
Yes, this is why - regardless of the outcome - he needed to be charged. People shouldn't be able to think they can get away with a thought process that equates to "I can defraud people and if my plan doesn't work out I'll find some other way to make it right." Fraud is fraud, and if you make it "right" via some other channel you haven't really made it right. You've gotten lucky and made your fraud look better.